“For an editor with no training in cardiology to become a cardiologist overnight would be unthinkable, but it’s routine the other way round.”

The quote above is a great point made in the article. The assumption that a person gifted in one area is generally wonderful (halo effect) is quite often wrong. I would think an effective editor would need in-depth knowledge of the subject, but with increasing levels of expertise comes increasing bias. It’s impossible to be an expert in a subject and not be substantially invested in the status quo.

This article offers several examples of experts, such as Hans Eysenck in psychology, of putting their hands on the scale. In his case, perhaps his hand was the scale. The ideal person for an editorship would be knowledgeable and unbiased. It’s quite unlikely such a person exists. A hybrid approach of a panel of experts with a diversity of opinion (team of rivals) with an unbiased senior editor might making final decisions might work. It sounds like the BMJ was aiming for something like this.

Strong work, great to see somebody take ownership of their health!

This is amazing. Thank you for sharing this story.

Great story. It's so cool to see a whole family get involved with CrossFit and forge a common bond.